A. The legislature finds that:

(1) sex offenders pose a significant risk of recidivism; and

(2) the efforts of law enforcement agencies to protect their communities from sex offenders are impaired by the lack of information available concerning convicted sex offenders who live within the agencies' jurisdictions.

B. The purpose of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act is to assist law enforcement agencies' efforts to protect their communities by:

(1) requiring sex offenders who are residents of New Mexico to register with the county sheriff of the county in which the sex offender resides;

(2) requiring sex offenders who are residents in other states, but who are employed in New Mexico or who attend school in New Mexico, to register with the county sheriff of the county in which the sex offender works or attends school;

(3) requiring the establishment of a central registry for sex offenders; and

(4) providing public access to information regarding certain registered sex offenders.

History: Laws 1995, ch. 106, § 2; 1999, ch. 19, § 2.

The 1999 amendment, effective July 1, 1999, inserted "and Notification" in Subsection B, inserted "who are residents of New Mexico" in Paragraph B(1), added Paragraphs B(2) and B(4), redesignated former Paragraph B(2) as Paragraph B(3), and made minor stylistic changes.

Constitutionality of act. — Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act does not violate either the federal or state ex post facto clause, does not violate either the federal or the state due process clause, and does not violate N.M. Const. art. IV, §ection 34. State v. Druktenis, 2004-NMCA-032, 135 N.M. 223, 86 P.3d 1050.

Where a constitutionally permissible retroactive application of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act requirements to defendant made him subject to a probation violation if he knowingly failed to register and if he were found to have committed a felony by failing to register, this does not constitute a legislative act that changes rules of evidence or procedure in a pending case. Therefore, the legislative changes are too indirect, remote, and attenuated to be considered unconstitutional under N.M. Const. art. IV, § 34. State v. Druktenis, 2004-NMCA-032, 135 N.M. 223, 86 P.3d 1050.

Retroactive application of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act does not violate the ex post facto clause of the United States or New Mexico constitutions. State v. Druktenis, 2004-NMCA-032, 135 N.M. 223, 86 P.3d 1050.

Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act is part of New Mexico's law enforcement code and not part of the criminal code. State v. Druktenis, 2004-NMCA-032, 135 N.M. 223, 86 P.3d 1050.

Legislative intent. — Legislature's intent in enacting Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act was to enact a civil, remedial, regulatory, nonpunitive law. State v. Druktenis, 2004-NMCA-032, 135 N.M. 223, 86 P.3d 1050.

Notification provisions are rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest, purpose, and goal. State v. Druktenis, 2004-NMCA-032, 135 N.M. 223, 86 P.3d 1050.

The State's interest in attempting to protect society from convicted sex offenders who pose a significant risk of recidivism is both legitimate and compelling. State v. Druktenis, 2004-NMCA-032, 135 N.M. 223, 86 P.3d 1050.

Purpose and principal effect of notification provisions are to inform the public for its own safety, not to punish or stigmatize and ostracize the offender. State v. Druktenis, 2004-NMCA-032, 135 N.M. 223, 86 P.3d 1050.